Impact of Crusades

Pretorian

Joined: 14-Jul-2006
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 164

Quote

Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 05:29

AM 6135

In this year Omar started to build a temple in Jerusalem, but his building didn`t stand, but fell. When he asked about the reason, Jews sad him: �If you don`t take off the cross from the Mount of Olives, your building will never stand�. And then the cross from the Mount of Olives was taken off and the building didn`t fall. And becuase of that the haters of Christ threw down a lot of crosses.

AM 6182

Meanwhile Abimelech (Αβιμελεχ) started to build a temple in Makka (Μακκα) and he wanted to get the columns from Saint Gethsemane, and certain Sergius, Christian man, general-accountant (I think this is λογοθετης) of Mansur who was friendly to Abimelech, asked him (i.e. Abimelech), and his friend patricius, the most important man among the Palestinian Christians, named Klesos (Κλαυσυς) asked him (Abimelech) not to do that and they (both) asked and persuaded Justinian to send him instead of these other columns and it happened (i.e. Justinian sent the columns).

Edited by Philhellene - 20-Aug-2006 at 05:38

Philhellene View Drop Down

Pretorian

Joined: 14-Jul-2006
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 164

Quote

Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 05:33

AM 6135

AM 6182

Edited by Philhellene - 20-Aug-2006 at 05:35

Philhellene View Drop Down

Pretorian

Joined: 14-Jul-2006
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 164

Quote

Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 10:00

Originally posted by Seko

Wrong. It was nearly impossible no matter how hard Omar's enemies tried to convert him or renounce his marriage offers. Omar had the world at his beckoning.

But Cyrus wasn`t his enemy unlike Heraclius. He was his friend. That`s very important.

Seko

Emperor

Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595

Quote

Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 15:30

From what you posted I could gather the following meaning. Cyrus wanted to seal an alliance by asking Herclius to allow his daughter to marry Omar. Did I read that correctly? Heraclius then refused his daughter and the marriage (alliance). Cyrus also tried to baptize Omar and his army.

So how does that make Omar weak in faiith?

Philhellene View Drop Down

Pretorian

Joined: 14-Jul-2006
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 164

Quote

Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 16:07

How could Cyrus even hope to baptize Omar if he was a good Muslim? How could these negotiations be possible?

Seko

Emperor

Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595

Quote

Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 16:11

Good question. Whether he tried can mean many things. Eventually he was unsuccessful. Could you share the quote in english about this matter if it all possible. I would like to know the process involved and the validity of it.

�ok ge�

Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775

Quote

Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 16:13

Originally posted by Nestorian

but you forget, I mentioned activities after the welcome by the Egyptians of Arabs by which they rebelled and deserted to the Byzantines when the opportunity arose.

Deserted to Byzentine whenever an opportunity arose? I'm confident some, but you make it sounds as if they (all) did so. I highy doubt that. Read the following out of Wikipedia:

"The Persian occupation allowed Monophysitism to resurface in Egypt, and when imperial rule was restored by Emperor Heraclius in 629, the Monophysites were persecuted and their patriarch expelled. Egypt was thus in a state of both religious and political alienation from the Empire when a new invader appeared"

"Most of the Egyptian Christians welcomed their new rulers: the accession of a new regime meant for them the end of the persecutions by the Byzantine state church. Thus ended 973 years of Gr�co-Roman rule over Egypt."

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegyptus_%28Roman_province%29

Why would they desert to Byzentine then? Not to find the religious tolerance they lacked for hundred of years. Neither to get lower taxes because simply the Byzentine empire was well-known for over-taking due to corruption, and contineous military operations which need to be funded.

Originally posted by Nestorian

And yes, conversion in Egypt was slow, but you must remember that the Copts held steadfast to their faith despite oppressive taxation.

The fact that some of these taxations hit the Egyption Muslim hard, meant it is a decline of the Empire and a high corruption signals. Very normal cycle of any government. Surely they held on Christianity long, but that is due to cultural and historical reasons. Armenians stayed Christians for centuries of Muslim rule by Abbasyds and Ottomans.

Originally posted by Nestorian

Another source besides the Coptic assocation includes Warren Treadgold, a famous Byzantine historian who mentions the desertion of Coptic Christians to the Byzantines to be settled as citizens in the empire as well as the Byzantine attempt to recapture Alexandria and the welcome of the Byzantines by the Egyptians before the general Manuel foolishly squandered that support. .

Ah I see. So a Byzentine historian recording about Egypt and Coptic during the Muslim invasion. Really impressive that he stayed very objective in his views (or did he?).

Originally posted by Nestorian

I disagree, why would you arm a majority religious population with weapons in the first place? It is most likely a prohibition than an exemption. Think about it? If I conquered a region where my religion was a foreign minority, would it be sensible to allow that religious majority to be armed and hence, a potential threat? .

Why would you arm the whole population as you say? I did not stress on exemption of military as you mentioned. However, since you already stated it, probably you mean the drafting of Copts to be in Muslim armies. That would be more proper than starting the point with "arming the majority".

Originally posted by Nestorian

Besides, I have no reason to doubt the integrity and honesty of the Egyptian Christians.

Neither do I doubt their integrity in a general way. But common sense says that as much as you should leave a space of doubts to a Serb who is recording the Ottoman Empire history in the Balkan , I should do the same to a minority that might be angered by the fact that they lost their culture and religion to a new coming invaders. Comprende?

Edited by �ok ge� - 20-Aug-2006 at 16:14

D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.

Philhellene View Drop Down

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/holmes.pdf

Pretorian

Joined: 14-Jul-2006
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 164

Quote

Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 18:46

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegyptus_%28Roman_province%29

Wikipedia is a great thing, but we don`t know if the author of this article used reliable sources.

the Byzentine empire was... over-taking due to corruption...

Arabian (I mean Arabian countries) corruption is also well known.

Nestorian

Pretorian

Joined: 08-Jul-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 161

Quote

Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 00:43

Just because I said they deserted when the opportunity arose does not mean all of them did? Isn't it simple, they deserted when the opportunity arose?? But it is clear a majority did not have the opportunity. Christians living on the frontier did when Byzantine raids transferred them into the empire as settlers.

Didn't you read what I said before? Relations between Monophysites and the Chalcedonians improved remarkably after the Byzantines lost Monophysite regions. There were large communities of Monophysites inside the empire and the fact that the rise and increase of church-building and monasteries after the Byzantine reconquest of areas where large populations of Monophysites lived is evidence enough.

As for Byzantine corruption, YOU MAKE it sound like they have the monopoly on corruption. And their Arab neigbours weren't? Thats just myopic.....

And you exaggerate when you say Byzantine were high, taxes were generally high in the medieval world. You don't find many Byzantines deserting to the Arabs do you? Perhaps rebel leaders for political purposes.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the extortionate practice of Muslim governors targetting the Coptic Patriarch for money? Since these governors had short tenures, the motivation to make as much money as possible was very high. The patriarch was a natural target for ransom.

Treadgold is a historian of Byzantium. Just becayse a person is a Byzantine historian does not automatically make them partisan either.

Another well kknown historian is Walter Kaegi, historian of Byzantine and Islamic studies too and he confirms the same thing.

My point still stands, you don't give access to weapons to a religious majority, though they accepted you becayse you were their enemies' enemy, it does not necessarily mean you "like" them.

The Copts are not the same as the Serbs, in their homeland region of Serbia, they were the majority, not the minority. IN Egypt, for a long time, the Copts were the minority. If it is biased that the Copts resent the discrimination and occasional persecution suffered by them it is still a fact, yes a historical fact. Not all biases should be dismissed if they can be proven.

Perhaps you will find this enlighten Cok Gec

Edited by Nestorian - 21-Aug-2006 at 00:48

Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign

�ok ge�

Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775

Quote

Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 17:24

Originally posted by Nestorian

Didn't you read what I said before? Relations between Monophysites and the Chalcedonians improved remarkably after the Byzantines lost Monophysite regions. There were large communities of Monophysites inside the empire and the fact that the rise and increase of church-building and monasteries after the Byzantine reconquest of areas where large populations of Monophysites lived is evidence enough.

Does it matter if they fixed the problem after they lost? The Byzentine rule over Syria was as oppressive in terms of high-taxation and religious intolerance. Which caused the local Christian population to welcome the Muslim invasions. I quote from the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch in Eastern United States (so it is a Christian church of original Syrians and away from the influence of Syrian government who someone can argue can pressure the puplication of the church):

"The Position of the Syrians Toward the Islamic Conquest >From the above it becomes clear that the religious conflicts in the Christian church, the attempts of the Byzantine powers to force the issues of the council of Chalcedon upon the other churches by force, to throw its members in prison, to kill them, to ban them and to drive them out alienated the Syrian Christians. All these unchristian deeds only sowed hate and aversion in the hearts of the Syrians against the Byzantine powers. The Persian powers in their empire oppressed both West and East Syrians in general to force them under tyrannical policies and Zoroastrian beliefs. Therefore the Syrians under the Byzantine and Persian powers saw the Islamic conquerors as liberators and not as occupiers. The Syrians put great hope in them, not only because the Muslims liberated them from their religious trouble but also because they relieved the Syrians of the burdensome taxes that were placed on their backs. They said, "Praise be to God, who delivered us from the unjust Byzantines and who put us under the rule of the just Muslim Arabs."

Source: http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/Articles/history.htm

Byzentine still have not learned the lesson. Continuing the same oppressive policies in Egypt. They lost Egypt after. Guess what? The same scenario occurs in other incidents of North African conquest. So after losing all Monophysite states, they decided to became tolerant? They need a good publication for sure to convince Monophysite Christians that they have changed their attitude toward them.

Originally posted by Nestorian

As for Byzantine corruption, YOU MAKE it sound like they have the monopoly on corruption. And their Arab neigbours weren't? Thats just myopic.....

Yes, at the time of the invasion, they were known to be corrupt with high taxes and combined with religious intolerance. I already posted to you the example of Syrian attitudes to the conquest of Muslims and they also mentioned "high taxation". Not a coincidence that it happened in two different places and of two different time frames. It is a signal that all of the Empire provinces had the same problem.
I ,at the same time, mentioned that the Muslim control of Egypt must have not been consistent and that I'm sure periods of high taxations were witnessed or even discrimination. After all, Muslim governors of Egypts were not god sent angels. I re-post my quote earlier:

Originally posted by �ok ge�

Would tax be always lower? I doubt it. Im sure over taxation is common by any government and in fact, it did impact all of the residents of Egypt

Originally posted by Nestorian

And you exaggerate when you say Byzantine were high, taxes were generally high in the medieval world. You don't find many Byzantines deserting to the Arabs do you? Perhaps rebel leaders for political purposes.

About high taxes, that was already answered and I will show you that 50% more taxes is not the normal of the medieval world. Regarding focusing on a group that deserted to one side. Your post seems to conceal an objective view by telling that deserted Copts to Byzentine are signs of intolerance Muslim rule, but deserted byzeintineans are "perhaps rebel leaders for political purpose". A double standard indeed. In any case, to give you an example, during the reign of Constans II, while a civil war is going between Ali and Muawiyah in the Muslim Empire (a point of no conquest and no military compaign against Byzeintine) a division of 5000 slavs deserted to the Arabs who were settled in Palestine in 665 AD.

Originally posted by Nestorian

Perhaps you'd like to explain the extortionate practice of Muslim governors targetting the Coptic Patriarch for money? Since these governors had short tenures, the motivation to make as much money as possible was very high. The patriarch was a natural target for ransom.

It seems you have a focus on inflated incidents of history and portraying them as the normal pattern Copts faced in Egypt. Another contrasting view is commonly found (but purposely avoided), such as the following academic published quote that proves the Copts were taxed half of Byzentine taxes!

"The Coptic-speaking monophysite majority rejoiced to be free of Byzantine rule, gained a measure of religious toleration they had not known since the Council of Chalcedon, and found themselves taxed at just over half the rate they had been under the Empire.

For the first four centuries of their rule, the Arabs treated the Copts with forebearance, in part because Mohammed, whose Egyptian wife was the only one to bear him a son, had said "When you conquer Egypt, be kind to the Copts for they are your proteges and kith and kin." The Copts were therefore allowed to practice their religion freely, and were protected as "People of the Book" as long as they paid a special tax, called the "Geyza." The Coptic population became an important source of revenue for the Islamic governors, and at one point they discouraged conversion to Islam for financial reasons. The tax advantages of becoming Muslim led to a slow decline in the Coptic population until it stabilized at just under 10% of the population. "
Source: http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/EgyptandIslam.html

Originally posted by Nestorian

The Copts are not the same as the Serbs, in their homeland region of Serbia, they were the majority, not the minority. IN Egypt, for a long time, the Copts were the minority. If it is biased that the Copts resent the discrimination and occasional persecution suffered by them it is still a fact, yes a historical fact. Not all biases should be dismissed if they can be proven.

My example was simple in which I say, for you to take a Serbian tale of Ottoman rule over Balkan (where they lost land, had part of the population converted), you will normally find a biased pattern of viewing the Ottoman era in the region in their tales. That is normal and expected by any group. Call it a human nature.
However, I did post to you another view by also other Coptic. Somehow, not all Copts share your view of history.

D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.

Nestorian

Pretorian

Joined: 08-Jul-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 161

Quote

Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 23:57

You qoute from the Syrian Orthodox Church in America but u forget that while it away from the influence of the Syrian government, it is not away from the influence of the leader of the Syrian ORthodox Church in Syria which is UNDER the influence of the Syrian government.

I'm not saying ti does matter if they fixed the problem, that was never the issue, the issue was that the Arab occupation wasn't exactly as nice and benevolent as initially thought. All you've tried to do is fudge and confuse my arguments with non-relevant events and unrelated arguments. You just can't admit facts when they happen can you?

And the Arab invaders weren't exactly "welcomed" with fanfare and jubilation more a sense of pragmatism and realpolitik so please don't try and portray this as some of "grand" celebration because it wasn't the case.

Once again, you are myopic, the Sassanids had high taxes, corruption and religious persecution too. This combination led to their decline and fall. ANd you exaggerate, in areas of the empire where they were extensive attacks by enemies, taxes were indeed high because of the need to recoup lost revenue from devastated territories. The Exarchate of Carthage was one of the more fortunate places not to have oppressive taxation due to its relatively long distance from major conflicts and invasion in the Balkans and the Middle East.

And you seem to think I'm saying persecution and high taxation was consistent in Muslim rule. I never said that, I only said that Muslim rule in Egypt was not as benevolent as expected. Of that I am right. And you yourself have admitted it. I think we are saying the same thing but from a different approach...strangely enough.

Besides Slavs anyone else? You can't use one incident and paint a whole picture of Byzantium can you? The Slavs were not long time residents of the empire but one of many people settled hastily in Byzantine territory who did not share its identity and traditions and therefore felt no loyalty to the empire. Perfectly understandable.

I could mention the Banu Habib, the Khurramites as examples of subjects under Arab rule who deserted to the Byzantines but chose not to because it may lead to a single brushstroke painting a whole picture.

In either case, I am not displaying a double standard. You mentioned exceptions, not the norms.

How very strange that you use "anecdotes" as evidence....

Once again you ignore the massive COptic rebellions....whether with Muslims or not, it does not matter because the Muslims were nto treated the same as the Copts because the Copts were not the equal of Muslims.

Do you expect me to believe Christians and Muslims were equal?

There are many definitions of tolerance, how do you define tolerance?

Indeed, I think the Copts were tolerated under Muslim rule...but tolerance doesn't necessarily mean equality and freedom from discrimination. Tolerance can be defined by the minimal quality of simply allowing somone to exist. But that doesn't mean a person cannot be humiliated as the Copts indeed were.

You showed me qoutes from the Syrian Church and yet you do not accept those from the Coptic Church? Is it because it suits ur purpose only??

Its a good thing the Copts are still large to raise their voices and make themselves heard.

Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign

�ok ge�

Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775

Quote

Posted: 22-Aug-2006 at 15:53

Originally posted by Nestorian

You qoute from the Syrian Orthodox Church in America but u forget that while it away from the influence of the Syrian government, it is not away from the influence of the leader of the Syrian ORthodox Church in Syria which is UNDER the influence of the Syrian government.

Ah, consiperacy theory. Unfortunately, that is an assumption you made.

Originally posted by Nestorian

Once again, you are myopic, the Sassanids had high taxes, corruption and religious persecution too. This combination led to their decline and fall. ANd you exaggerate, in areas of the empire where they were extensive attacks by enemies, taxes were indeed high because of the need to recoup lost revenue from devastated territories.

First, let us not call each other by names and keep up the respect please. Second, you are repeating what I said exactly. If the Sassanid empire had high taxes too and intolerance, do I care about Sassanid vs Byzentine? You claim that Byzantine policies are similar to other Medieval Empires. However, I did already disapprove that by showing that Muslims after capturing Egypt, taxed only 50% of what Byzentine did. Also, I did mention already that those high Byzantine taxes are due to contineious military operations. Something you repeated again for some reason.

Originally posted by Nestorian

never said that, I only said that Muslim rule in Egypt was not as benevolent as expected. Of that I am right. And you yourself have admitted it. I think we are saying the same thing but from a different approach...strangely enough.

I never said Muslim rule in Egypt was a rosey one all the time (go back to my first post on this thread). However, without my opposition to what you posted, the reader will only get half of the picture. Had you posted examples of tolerance and intolerance, I would have accepted your objectivity.

Originally posted by Nestorian

Besides Slavs anyone else? You can't use one incident and paint a whole picture of Byzantium can you?.

Yes, other incidents are well reported too. However, you accused me of distracting the flow of the argument, though you are the one who started to diviate the argument by stating examples of deserters to Byzantine, and then asking examples of desertation to the Muslims. Yes, you cannot paint a whole picture of Byzentine from tens of examples even, that applies to you as well.
In any case, for other examples that satisfy your refusal to accept reality, Look into all Jacobites, Nestorians, and finally the accounts of Odo of Deuil, a monk of St. Denis and chaplain to Louis VII, accompanied his patron on the second Crusade where he gave a moving account of the conversion to Islam of a large number of crusaders whose treatment they received at the hands of their own commanders, or at the hands of the Greek escorts, the Venetian ship owners, and the Byzantine hosts, contrasted shockingly with that of the Muslims.

Originally posted by Nestorian

I could mention the Banu Habib, the Khurramites as examples of subjects under Arab rule who deserted to the Byzantines .

Sure, you can mention as many examples as you desire. Yet, I didn't ask for any example from the begining. Also, read about them before using them as examples. Banu Habib were an Arab tribe Nisibis who escaped high taxation and started to loot and attack the city before their blood-related Hamdanite attacked them back and defeated them with the Byzentine support. Khurramites were in rebilion against the Abbasyds after their leader Abu Muslim Al Khurrasani was murdered. Where would an opposition escape normally? to the enemy of course. Notice that my examples so far were not of oppositions escaping to the enemy side, rather than citizens and soldiers who totally deserted to the Muslims as chances came out. That is a huge difference you might like to take into consideration.

Originally posted by Nestorian

Tolerance can be defined by the minimal quality of simply allowing somone to exist. But that doesn't mean a person cannot be humiliated as the Copts indeed were.

Let us take a look on the tolerance Egypt enjoyed before the Muslim conquest. From Wikipedia (non-Muslim and non-Coptic source):

Copts suffered under the rule of the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire. The Melkite Patriarchs, appointed by the emperors as both spiritual leaders and civil governors, massacred the Egyptian population whom they considered heretics. Many Egyptians were tortured and martyred to accept the terms of Chalcedon, but Egyptians remained loyal to the faith of their fathers and to the Cyrillian view of Christology. One of the most renowned Egyptian saints of that period is Saint Samuel the Confessor.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Church

I will be surprised if Copts were not celebrating in streets the defeat of Byzentine (Actually you can google those accounts). What happened to Egypt after Muslim conquest was definitely more than "allowing someone to exist".

Originally posted by Nestorian

You showed me qoutes from the Syrian Church and yet you do not accept those from the Coptic Church? Is it because it suits ur purpose only?

I dont think you understood the use of the Syrian Church example. Academic publications support the view of predominant tolerance in Egypt as I posted already. When a local church (which mostly unhappy of how it was turned by Muslims conquest into a minority) comes to disclaim other churches exaggerated account of prosecution, then that is something to note.
Regarding Egypt, I did post to you previously academic publications that opposes the church exaggerated claim. It is up to you to decide what side you like to adopt. I myself being a Muslim, and out of church influence on my perception, will favor the academic publication.
If I will even look back to my personal experience, I have met other living examples of how Coptic church prosecute their converts because of the sensitivity of that issue. I'm also happy go share their contacts with you if you are interested to communicate with them.

D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.

Nestorian

Pretorian

Joined: 08-Jul-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 161

Quote

Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 10:08

Ah, consiperacy theory. Unfortunately, that is an assumption you made.

I did not imply a conspiracy theory nor even thought of it at all. I mentioned facts and the fact is the Syrian Orthodox Church is careful with its activities which reflect in its branches overseas.

You did not disprove anything at all, the Arabs did tax the Copts highly and subsequent rebellions and historicaol events showed it. Its up to you to accept it.

My intention was not to portray only the bad side of Muslim rule in Egypt as the earlier posts alluded to good sides of Muslim rule of Egypt so i decided to balance it. In my opinion, Copts were still second-class citizens with conditions that emphasised their inferiority structurally and culturally, but nonetheless, it was generally not a bad place to live. I would never deny such relativity when compared with other places.

We can agree that desertions happened on both sides then?? As there are ample examples for both cases?

I cited examples which consists of both citizens (Coptic citizens) and soldiers. What the Banu Habib was negligible, they were enemies of the Hamdanid, and so they fought their enemies? What did you expect?

From one of my earlier sources (from Holmes), Monophysites, Jacobites and Nestorian citizens moved into Byzantine territory because they enjoyed better conditions. In fact, their building activities and membership growth rose at the time of the Byzantine reconquest instead of under Muslims. Thats not to say entire populations of a region, but those fortunate and able to move into Byzantine territory...in the end it didn't matter as the Seljuks undid all that work....:(

Copts suffered under the rule of the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire. The Melkite Patriarchs, appointed by the emperors as both spiritual leaders and civil governors, massacred the Egyptian population whom they considered heretics. Many Egyptians were tortured and martyred to accept the terms of Chalcedon, but Egyptians remained loyal to the faith of their fathers and to the Cyrillian view of Christology. One of the most renowned Egyptian saints of that period is Saint Samuel the Confessor.

I'm not denying Byzantine misrule at all. But my point has been that Muslim rule wasn't as nice as many other Muslim seem to point out. I'm merely balancing the equation when I see it has been misbalanced.

The Muslim governors of Egypt also frequently tortured the Coptic Patriarchs for money and other extortionate practices but I'm not going to say that this happened every single year, century and millenium. But it did happen.

You talk about a sectarian relationship between the Orthodox and the Monophysites, but that is not consistent with comparing Islam's religious and NOT sectarian relationship with the Monophysites. As the criteria is not the same and therefore distortive. The Muslims themselves were not as kind to sectarian deviations within their religion either. If we are talking interrreligious relationships then it is different. As you know, there is a greater hatred for "heretics than infidels."

dont think you understood the use of the Syrian Church example. Academic publications support the view of predominant tolerance in Egypt as I posted already. When a local church (which mostly unhappy of how it was turned by Muslims conquest into a minority) comes to disclaim other churches exaggerated account of prosecution, then that is something to note.
Regarding Egypt, I did post to you previously academic publications that opposes the church exaggerated claim. It is up to you to decide what side you like to adopt. I myself being a Muslim, and out of church influence on my perception, will favor the academic publication.
If I will even look back to my personal experience, I have met other living examples of how Coptic church prosecute their converts because of the sensitivity of that issue. I'm also happy go share their contacts with you if you are interested to communicate with them.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Church

There are academic publications which also argue the opposite, but they are dismissed as "biased" by those who have a vested interest in doing so. I too say to you that it is up to you accept them if you want.

Famous authors are:

Bat Ye'or

Efraim Karsh

We're going nowhere with this argument it is quite clear.

Perhaps we can agree that the behaviour and rule of states are always in a state of flux and dynamism dependently tied to the unique vicissitudes of time, place, person and circumstance?

Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign

Philhellene View Drop Down

Pretorian

Joined: 14-Jul-2006
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 164

Quote

Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 14:03

Originally posted by Seko

Good question. Whether he tried can mean many things. Eventually he was unsuccessful. Could you share the quote in english about this matter if it all possible. I would like to know the process involved and the validity of it.

Nicephorus, Breviarium

When Heaclius was in the East, he appointed Johannes Varkenos as his general and sent him against Egyptian Saracens, and he fell in the battle wih them. And Marinus, chief of Thracian army, was defeated in the battle with them, lost a lot of soldiers and hardly escaped. Then Heraclius appointed in his place Marianus as his general, who had a roman title cubicularius. He sent him in Egypt and ordered him to get into touch with Alexandrian patriarch Cyrus and discuss with him the relationship wih Saracens. Cyrus persuaded basileus to make peace with Omar, chief of Saracens, on condition of paying tribute, and he planned to get it by imposing duties on goods without decreasing what was owed to basileus. It was advised to promise Omar one of basileus` daughters to impel Omar to baptize and to become a Christian. Omar and his army obeyed Cyrus, because they loved him. But Heraclius didn`t like it all. When Marianus found out it, he rejected the plans of Cyrus and went into battle with Saracens and he died and lost a lot of soldiers.

�ok ge�

Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775

Quote

Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 17:34

Originally posted by Nestorian

I did not imply a conspiracy theory nor even thought of it at all. I mentioned facts and the fact is the Syrian Orthodox Church is careful with its activities which reflect in its branches overseas.

No reason for them to compliment the Muslim era. They can remain silent about it. Coptic Churches in USA also follow the Pope Shnodah of the Egyption Coptic church in Egypt. That does not necessiate a relationship of censorship.

Originally posted by Nestorian

You did not disprove anything at all, the Arabs did tax the Copts highly and subsequent rebellions and historicaol events showed it. Its up to you to accept it.

First, it is an urguable fact that taxes during early centuries of Muslim Egypt were rediciolously lower than those of Byzentine. Raising taxes will always result in miscomfort and rebillion. Although Muslims are encouraged to obey their rulers as long as not in contradiction of the Muslim faith, taxes were high enough in some periods that Muslims of Egypt themselves could not tolerate those taxes despite their so-claimed "privilages". Copts have more incentives to rebell especially that they feel less attached to the Muslim authority. That is simply the fair picture of Egypt flacuating history. If taxes was astronomically high and targetting only the Copts, No Muslim rebellions of taxes would have result. In fact, the Muslim rebillion against those taxes continued even during the Ottoman era when they were encouraged by Al Azhar to revolt in the 18th century.

Originally posted by Nestorian

My intention was not to portray only the bad side of Muslim rule in Egypt as the earlier posts alluded to good sides of Muslim rule of Egypt so i decided to balance it.

As far as I recall and this thread show, you actually started the topic of Muslim rule in Egypt with posted accusations. So what earlier posts that allueded the good side of "muslim rule of egypt" that you needed to balance?

Originally posted by Nestorian

fact, their building activities and membership growth rose at the time of the Byzantine reconquest instead of under Muslims. Thats not to say entire populations of a region, but those fortunate and able to move into Byzantine territory...in the end it didn't matter as the Seljuks undid all that work....:(.

Seljuks too took Jerusalem from the more tolerant Abbasid caliphate of the Fatimid and they harrassed Christian pilgrimages which was one of the propoganda used to start the first Crusade beside Byzantine losing the battle of Manzikert. Funny though, first Crusade was far more destructive to Byzantine than the threat of Seljuks.

Originally posted by Nestorian

The Muslim governors of Egypt also frequently tortured the Coptic Patriarchs for money and other extortionate practices but I'm not going to say that this happened every single year, century and millenium. But it did happen.

If you cannot say this happened every single year, century and milienium, then you nullify your earlier statement that they were "frequently tortured". In fact, in Islamic literature and historical accounts, the famous story When the son of the Muslim governor of Egypt beat a Christian on his head after a quarrel, the latter went over to Omar in Madinah asking for justice. Omar summoned the governor and his son and gave the Christian a whip to beat his opponent in the presence of the great men of the state. After the Christian took revenge for himself and abstained from beating the governor himself when Omar asked him to, he said: I have received justice. Christians pray God to reward You!. Turning to his governor, Omar said: Why do you enslave the freely born people?
I wonder if any accounts of such conducts even by Byzantine accounts.

Originally posted by Nestorian

If we are talking interrreligious relationships then it is different. As you know, there is a greater hatred for "heretics than infidels."

True, there is always prosecution of "hertics" inside a religious institution. However, may claim is still valid. Because of the heretic prosecution of Copts under the Byzentine rule, the vast majority of historians will assure that Muslim rule of Egypt in general has been far tolerant than the Byzantine era in general.

Originally posted by Nestorian

Famous authors are:
Bat Ye'or
Efraim Karsh

It is always good to have other views available. Despite Bat Ye'or is a "prosecuted Egyption Jew" who fled to London with her family and Efraim Karsh is an Israeli professor who worked as an analyst of the IDF (infamous institution no doubt), I will look into their accounts.

Originally posted by Nestorian

Perhaps we can agree that the behaviour and rule of states are always in a state of flux and dynamism dependently tied to the unique vicissitudes of time, place, person and circumstance?

Very true, always and to all cases.

D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.

Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down

General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984

Quote

Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 00:09

The problem with this forum is that it is dominated by the Islamophiles, Islamists and socialists. To such an extent, that history from a Christian perspective is reflexively, constantly attacked by the aforementioned groups.

The crusades contributed majorly to European civilisations, as it protected us from the Islamic hordes and prevented our cultures, ideologies to devolve by shielding us from the negative influence of Islam. Islam can be considered as a negative influence due to its inherently flawed dogmata, even more than Christianity. Canonical Christianity, intrinsically, is a religion of peace, while Islam doctrinally encourages violence to a certain degree.

Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 24-Aug-2006 at 00:15

Komnenos